Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Doing nothing does not mean he’s invoking executive privilege. Never has been.
Congress is within their power to disagree and impeach based on this. Congress does not require judicial permission to exercise their constitutional authority. That would make them subordinate to the other branches.

It's clear you intend only to lie to yourself, and then me.
Thank you making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

I did indeed. Your dopey logic was hilarious.

Now quote me saying what you attributed to me, idiot.

I just did.

maybe I should put lines around it?

Nah, you obviously can't read between the lines.

I read the lines presented. I'm not here to try and interpret your dopey ravings.

Quote me saying this, liar.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

 

[Faun]

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

And until they do, Trump hasn't been impeached, Halfwit.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Sure, dumbfuck. Suuure. Shit, even Fox news published...

That was the early stampede by brainless journalists

but they are beginning to have 2nd thoughts

Oh? Fox news is having second thoughts?

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Doing nothing does not mean he’s invoking executive privilege. Never has been.
Congress is within their power to disagree and impeach based on this. Congress does not require judicial permission to exercise their constitutional authority. That would make them subordinate to the other branches.

It's clear you intend only to lie to yourself, and then me.
Thank you making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

I notice you don’t respond to my arguments with counter points.

Because you can’t.

 

[AntonToo]

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

There is no such wholesale privilege.

You claim has no basis in truth or law.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Even Trump's WH Council has to testify, never mind other, less protected members of administration.

 

[Faun]

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

Do you doubt he will be acquitted?

No. But until he is, he remains the only president impeached who was not.

 

[Mac-7]

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

 

[AntonToo]

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

 

[Faun]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

So Johnson couldn't run again??

 

[Faun]

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

I did indeed. Your dopey logic was hilarious.

Now quote me saying what you attributed to me, idiot.

He can't since you didn't.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

Do you doubt he will be acquitted?

No. But until he is, he remains the only president impeached who was not.

and when you get 20 republicans to cross the aisle, , he will be found guilty, and possibly removed from office.

Do you see that happening?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

I did indeed. Your dopey logic was hilarious.

Now quote me saying what you attributed to me, idiot.

He can't since you didn't.

Truthfully I think he's trying to sufficiently befoul this thread so he can push it to the flame zone.

 

[Olde Europe]

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

There is no such wholesale privilege.

You claim has no basis in truth or law.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

Do you doubt he will be acquitted?

No. But until he is, he remains the only president impeached who was not.

and when you get 20 republicans to cross the aisle, , he will be found guilty, and possibly removed from office.

Do you see that happening?

Asked and answered.

 

[Mac-7]

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

 

[colfax_m]

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

Is not a blanket protection.

 

[Auld Phart]

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

 

[colfax_m]

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

Trump serves the American people who have a right to know what he is doing. He is not king.

 

[Nostra]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

Not yet, Window Licker.

Yup.

Dimwinger libnut hack on the web brings a meme....................

Should I go with him, or the Constitutional Expert Dimwingers brought to testify on impeachment.............

Hmmmmmmm..........